Free the John Edwards two!
The New York Times political blog "The Caucus" and editor Kate Phillips seemed to sympathize with two bloggers, Andrea Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, who recently quit the John Edwards campaign after coming under fire for bigoted, irresponsible, and vulgar statements they'd written on their own blogs in the past.
Marcotte quit Monday night after coming under fire for her incendiary and vulgar postings on the Catholic Church, and last night Melissa McEwan, who once blogged against Bush's “wingnut Christofascist base,” followed her out the door.
"Melissa McEwan, a blogger at Shakespeare’s Sister, who came under fire from a conservative Catholic group, along with Amanda Marcotte, of Pandagon, once both were hired onto John Edwards’s presidential campaign staff, has also decided to quit.
"Her statement on her blog is a little different, citing the onslaught of, well, she might see it as hate-mail or worse, descending into her email and onto the blog against her. We’ve seen much of it deluging our own website. Civility, we would once again mention, seems a lost concept, no matter whose set of beliefs are held dear, or whose writings are found objectionable. (We are in no way taking sides, just offering up, yet again, the observation that the online conversation has devolved into truly abhorrent language.)"
Speaking of "truly abhorrent language," has Phillips read any of the posts by Marcotte and McEwan? Here's one, in the form of a joke:
"Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?
A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology."
Phillips benignly called such offensive rants "feminist writings."
"Well, both women -- whose feminist writings were deemed anti-Catholic by Mr. Donohue and at times offensive by others and many not -- at first allowed Mr. Edwards’s campaign to publish statements by them saying their personal views or past writings would not color their work on the campaign. And they both asserted they were not denigrating any faith or any person of faith."
That's ridiculous, and Phillips should have enough journalistic chops to say so. How can the above "joke" from Marcotte's personal blog be interpreted any other way but as denigrating faith?
Phillips put the blame on conservative bloggers for having the bad manners to make a fuss:
"That didn’t stop conservative bloggers from flogging the issue. And that didn’t stop bloggers on all sides from posturing on one side or the other. And it didn’t stop even our readers from objecting on one side or the other, sometimes to the point where we couldn’t publish their obscene remarks." Is obscenity the reason the Caucus blog won't reprint the offensive anti-religious comments from Marcotte and McEwan?
In conclusion, Phillips plays the female card:
"The epilogue to this? I’m not sure. Some will indeed claim victory; some will counsel that political campaigns have to vet and vet and vet any staff; others will feel doomed in defeat of what was seen as an arm around new -- especially rare female -- voices in the blogosphere by politicians."
For more New York Times bias, visit Times Watch.
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Kate Phillips
February 14, 2007 - 13:47 ET by iveseenitallSo Phillips' argument goes--your blog is worse than my blog and its only because I'm a woman anyway -- The NYT gets more laughable every day. What original thinking!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
I'd be rioting right now if I
February 14, 2007 - 14:09 ET by TruthMongerI'd be rioting right now if I were an islamo-terrorist...
BUT JESUS FORGIVES THEM, FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO, (AND THEN SOME:)!)
I challenge these so-called "peace-activists" to organize JUST ONE MAJOR D.C. PROTEST AGAINST AL QUEDA by the end of 2007...
And is support of the fact th
February 14, 2007 - 14:22 ET by taznarAnd is support of the fact that not just the "intolerent right" was offended by their rantings, Edwards himself says he was offended by them. Or was he lying when he said that?
He was in CYA mode. Would you
February 14, 2007 - 14:33 ET by florida_chadHe was in CYA mode.
Would you let people whose statements you find offensive do PR for you???
Yes, he did say he was offe
February 14, 2007 - 15:08 ET by motherbeltYes, he did say he was offended by them, but he also said that he thought freedom of speech was important. This is what he was saying publicly, while in the back room his staff were telling the women they needed to get lost, like yesterday LOL.
Plausible deniability.
Oh, I get it now! They wer
February 14, 2007 - 14:52 ET by motherbeltOh, I get it now! They were just two "women" bloggers, writing about feminist ideals. Then those hateful conservatives came along, judging their writings as offensive, and then all hell broke loose. If Mr. Donohue and those other right-wing extremists just understood that it was "never their intention to malign" anyone, or any religion, they would fall on the floor laughing at their hilarious riddle!
So making a disgusting joke about the Virgin Birth, an article of the Catholic faith, and not only insulting God Himself in it, but declaring it an "ancient mythology", is just all in good fun, no harm intended.
"Feminist writings"....oh, so that's what that was. And they are much-need female voices in the blogosphere. We need more feminist voices like that.
Right.
Of course! Remember, as Ma
February 14, 2007 - 17:58 ET by Jinx McHueOf course! Remember, as Marcotte said after the fact, it's all just "satirical." Remember, you can say anything you want and it's okay as long as you retroactively call it "satire" when you get called on it. Oh, and you have to be a flaming left-wing feminazi, too.
Language, feminism, and Wikip
February 14, 2007 - 17:20 ET by ucLanguage, feminism, and Wikipedia>>> While still pondering why I can't get a few bits of historical writing to jive I came across this Wikipedia near description of position of /wiki/the_first_lady_of_the_United_States: "the first lady is not an elected position, carries no official duties, and brings no salary." Today I think it should be clarified and maybe read >> The First Lady/Gentleman position is most often reached by election of united spouse, carries all the expectations and commitments of their marriage/contractual vows, and brings only the shared salary of the expected to be more dominant and thus elected spouse.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22nd_amendment also provides specific language, though, language I see no need to revise.
generic wedding vows: "I take thee to be my...to have and to hold from this day forward...for better, for worse...to love and to cherish...according to God's holy ordinance...."
"Those whom God hath joined together, let no man put asunder!"
"The 22nd Amendment was proposed by the newly elected Republican 80th United States Congress...the rationale was a concern that without limits, the presidential position could become too similar to that of a benevolent dictator lasting...a lifetime...and upset the separation of powers." (same wiki 22nd Amendment article)
Anyone know the specific vows Bill and Hillary professed to each other and whether they attempted an earmarked amendment busting line into such? An election of Hillary would set asunder their vows for surely since there is no argument the he is termlimited and can only get to position of first gentlemen by the election of a full partner in a union he too is a full partner. "let no man set asunder!" includes voters I think.
So Republicans passed this on March 21, 1947.
Can a favorable rating for being a past first lady convert to electability? Maybe I should start reading anti-fraud laws for better definitions of intertwined acting parties.
Wait, is this woman actuall
February 15, 2007 - 02:54 ET by sarcasmoWait, is this woman actually saying female voices are in any way rare on blogs? (Coulda fooled me!) And isn't ANYONE else curious how much Edwards' campaign thought these bloggers were worth, and exactly what they were supposed to do??? I know I'm obsessed with money, but this is downright-odd. Hasn't any journalist/blogger even asked the Edwards campaign the question?
JMR
Not suprisingly, Marcotte is
February 16, 2007 - 01:45 ET by ferrarimanf355Not suprisingly, Marcotte is recieving some hateful e-mail:
http://pandagon.net/2007/02/13/people-who-claim-to-love-jesus-write-me/
Michelle Malkin only had it half-right on the "religion of perpetual outrage." It's not a one-way street, guys.
Uzumaki/Ayanami '08. Because a ninja and an Eva pilot can govern the nation better that what we have now...
emotions run high
February 17, 2007 - 01:47 ET by tumbler_2007Indeed, we are all emotional. No hate mail would've been forthcoming, really-- Had the blasphemers merely worked with a little self-control.
The bottom line however, isn't about the cretinous pair of cyber-sluts, but all about John Edwards. This was a man who fancied himself presidential timber. Instead of a minimum of damage control, firing the pair;
Edwards went hoytie-toytie, weaseled around and acted as if he was above reproach. Nobody was thinking of electing his two dirty bloggers to national office. Who cares about their cheesey hate-mail? Edwards is undone by a pair of maggots. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy! He'll be lucky now if he's elected pin-cushion for the Mayberry Quilting Bee.